The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1982-01-27; Planning Commission; ; V 331 - APELIANSTAFF REPORT DATE: January 27, 1982 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: V-331, APELIAN -REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW TANDEM PARKING TO MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR AN APART- MENT PROJECT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MARINA DRIVE IN THE R-W ZONE. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a variance to allow tandem parking on a .25 acre lot located as described above. An existing four unit apartment is located on the northerly half of the property. The applicant is proposing to construct a three unit apartment on the southerly half of the property. When completed, this project would have a density of 28 du/ac which is in conformance with the General Plan designation of 20-30 du/ac for this site. In December 1980, the applicant obtained a building permit for the construction of four apartments on the southerly half of the property. The applicant proceeded to construct these units with- out obtaining a permit from the Coastal Commission. Shortly after he started construction, the Coastal Commission made him stop and obtain a coastal permit. The Coastal Commission re- quired that he reduce the number of units to three and increase the number of on-site parking spaces. In December 1980, the applicant filed an adjustment plat with the city to combine two 40 foot wide lots to create the present 80 foot wide lot. The plat was filed to make the lot easier to develop. The applicant now wishes to construct 3 units and is requesting a variance to allow tandem parking. II. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1. Can the four mandatory findings of a variance be found in this case which are as follows: a. Are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property that do not apply to other property in the vicinity? b. Do other properties in the vicinity share a similar right which is denied to this property? c. Will this variance adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan? d. Will this variance be detrimental to other properties in the vicinity? Discussion Staff feels that there are no exceptional or extraordinary cir- cumstances that are applicable to the property that do not apply to other property in the vicinity. The subject property is 80 foot wide, although it once consited of two 40 foot wide lots that were combined by the previously mentioned adjustment plat. It appears that the adjustment plat was filed because the existing building was built within the sideyard setback line and gained access to the garage by an easement across the adjacent lot. By combining the two lots, the applicant was able to design a project which complied with the setback requirements and parking requirements of the R-W zone. Even though four existing units are on the subject property, adequate room exists to design a development which does not re- quire tandem parking. Staff, therefore, cannot find any excep- tional or extraordinary circumstances associated with this prop- erty. A number of lots in the Bristol Cove area have tandem parking. These lots conform with the existing zoning ordinance since they are less than 50 feet in width. The Commission may recall a zone code amendment to the R-W zone which increased the parking requirement. As part of this amendment, tandem parking was allowed on lots with a width of less than 50 feet. The Commission, and later the City Council, made it clear that the Bristol Cove area had significant parking problems and tandem parking should only be allowed on lots with a substandard lot width. No other lots in the Bristol Cove area with a lot width greater than 50 feet have tandem parking. Thus being the case, staff cannot find sufficient facts to support the findings that this property is being denied a property right shared by others in the same vicinity and zone. The approval of this variance will not adversely affect the com- prehensive General Plan, but could have a detrimental effect on other properties in the vicinity. Under the existing zoning ordinance, tandem parking is only allowed on lots that have a width of less than 50 feet. If this variance were granted, it could set an undesirable precedent, which could result in a number of variances being granted to allow tandem parking on lots with a width of greater than 50 feet. Such approvals would greatly aggravate the parking problems in the Bristol Cove area. -2- Since staff cannot make all four of the required findings nec- essary for granting a variance, denial is recommended. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that this requested variance is categorically exempt from environmental review according to Section 19.04.070(6)(D) of the City of Carlsbad Environmental Ordinance. V. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 1915, DENYING V-331 based on the findings contained therein. ATTACHMENTS 1. PC Resolution No. 1915 2. Location Map 3. Background Data Sheet 4. Disclosure Form 5. Letter dated October 7, 1981 6. Reduced Exhibits 7. Exhibit •A•, dated December 10, 1981 MH:ar 1/19/82 -3- n it LOCJ'-TDON SHELTER COVE C A S iE N O. ___:!IY[.__::3~3=-=1 __ _ RW AP LO LDC AN T__.A--=--p-=-e~lia="=-=-----VICINITY MAP BACKGIUJND DATA SHEET CA9E NO: V-331 --'------- APPLICANI': APELIAN ~EST AND LOCATICN: Variance to allow tandem parking at 4725 Marina Drive. LroAL DESCRIPTICN: Iot 69, 70 of Shelter Cove, of that tract described in Map 5162 filed April 23, 1963. APN: 207 -150 - Acres .25 1 -------Prop:>sed No. of lots/Units --------- GENERAL PLAN AND ZCN:n«; Land Use Designation ---------RH Density Allowed ___ 2_0-_3_0 ____ _ Density Proposed 28 du/ac _ __ __._ ____ _ Existing Zone IM Proposed Zone N/A -----------____ __. ______ _ surrouming zoning and Land use: Zoning Site North Multiple-Family South Multiple-Family F.ast Vacant West Bristol Cove Iand Use R-W R-W P-C 0-S PUBLIC FACILITIES School District Carlsbad Water* carlsbad sewer carlsbad EDU's ----- Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated December 3, 1981 --------------------- {* '!he city of Carlsbad will provide water service to all projects in Carlsbad except those located in the Olivenhain and San Maroos Se\\'er Districts) ENVI~AL IMPACI' ASSESSMENT Negative Declaration, issued ---------------- E.I.R. Certified, dated -------------- Other, EXEMPT PER SECTIOO 19.04.070{6)(D)(i) ______________ ....__'-'--'--'--'--------------- :-•.If after the info:rmation...,you have submitted has been rev,i-ewed, it is determined >1 ',..-t.litat further informatia( ___ s required_,. you wi.l.l. be so ac:(_ :;;ed. .. APPLICANT: .AGEll'.r: - Van J. Apelian Name (individual, partnership-,.. .. joint venture, corporation. syndication) 3 O O So . Be a ch B 1 v d . # A , La H ~ bra , Ca 1-i for n i a· 9 0 6 3 l Business Address 'felephon• Numl:)e.r -· .-,:~~---~ • .~ • _:, 1':;::--• • ~ ~:~~:.:.=~~-- ,:_:: ·-: . . .··· ... Business ~·~ ;iJ -r ' . . •· .. -"':j ---;... . • ·" :.. • .. • ... ~-,. . . . ·- :: ~~'.~. . .: t::~~;:lephon•:·>=::···~_,i{'.:. _·,·,:~··.::-i'". . J~;--. ~. ·. . . • f.=:_~-_., / •• --~--:::.tf~ -i;=:~ :i . · . .--_:_-:-_".~:r.: . peter;· ::t<ir 1· a·poff{(.300 ·f .• Beach~ B 1.vd .. , ·_:la-Habra, Ca-9-0631"3~/ .. _~: ---·>} MEM&EBS:. • • • . , . . . ::-~ .-. • . • • , . • • . • ··"'< ---- tlaae .:(j.nqividual, partner, joint . . .. Home Address venture-, corporation, synclicat1on) -___ .... <?I##_i.tJf{;. -· ~' . ;. :, ?/\~~--: Business ~ess Telephone Number Telephone Numb~r Robert Ba rne-s•--'::' 1541 • W ~ El sm-f·ord Ave, La Habra, Ca 90631 Home Address 3~siness Address . Telephone Number . (Attach more sheets if necessary} . -I/We decla:e under_ penalty of perjury that the-in-forr.:atio:i contained in this dis-- closure is .true and _correct and that it _will. remain true and correct and Day b~·· . relied upon as being true and correct until, a."!\ended·. BY .Agent:, C-,:ner, Par~n~r October 7, 1981 PDANNING DEPARTMENT City of Carlsbad County of San Diego Carlsbad, CA Gentlemen: PETER KIRIANOFF, VAN APELIAN 300 So. Beach Blvd. #A La Habra, California 90631 Enclosed herewith please find our application "Request for Varience" as presented in the attached Site Plans and Specifications for the construction of additional three (3) Unit Apartment in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, California. We wish to bring to the attention of the Planning Department the following additional factors relating to our request: 1. On December 9, 1980 an application was prepared and submitted to the Bui1dingDepartment, City of Carlsbad, requesting a lot line adjustment combining lots #60 and #70 of Shelter Cove in the City of Carlsbad. Our request was approved by the City of Carlsbad. Enclosed herewith are copies ol the Adjustment Plat and applicable approval by the City of Carlsbad. 2. During December 1980, Land use approval was obtained from the Bui~ding Department, City of Carlsbad for the construction of an additional four (4) Unit Apartment on subject property. 3. Application for a building permit along with final plans and spe- cifications were submitted to the City of Carlsbad Building Depart- ment. All necessary engineering and soil reports and all other requirements of the Building Department were complied with. After paying all necessary fees, the Carlsbad Building Department issued us a permit for the construction of a four (4) Unit Apartment. As the various applications were submitted to the Building Department, City of Carlsbad, at no time it was ever mentioned that the approval of the Coastal Commission would be required for this project. In fact the Contractor was advised by the Building Department that all require- ments have been met and construction can be started. Soon after con- struction had begun, the Coastal Commission approached the Contractor and advised to stop the project pending approval of the Coastal Com- mission. The Coastal Commission has takend exception to the parking requirement as originally approved by the City of Carlsbad and instead has approved Tandem Par~ .. ing with the deletion of one (1) Unit. .. ~ P1ahtiing Department October 7, 1981 Page -2 - The applicants have incurred substantial expenses for the various building permits, engineering fees and the placement of all under- ground facilities for the project. In addition, construction loans have been obtained at a very high interest rate as well as firm commitments made to suppliers for construction materials and sup- plies. Further delays will greatly increase our cost for the project, thus imposing an unnecessary hardship on the applicants. In view of the above circumstances, the Applicants respectfully request a favorable decision at your earliest convfenience. Very truly yours, J, l Q,. .. Q.« Van Jf Apellan Applicant VJA:db encl U) > iJ \ I : ...._c. -----== ------ I •• -· --~_@~~~·--'-~-~ ~--.j --:~-::-----c---r-----_·:.:;:-· -:~~,' [ t :f-,.~ t \ t/f. /·-,/./.., C...,.(: --i-.. _;: -' .. ' -· . _ __:\: ____ ---r--4 -..,. --~ ~--··· I ~ ·-~~ -·. • I. -t--. ~~-±-=_>_=· ~--,., _ . ., __ _ r--t I I ...__.:. r I • ;~ j~ i~ r_ r-r-~~ ,✓ .. ~~:1 _::__ -~-=--:....~ ;f' -: 0 I .-.;· ___ __,,, __ . l -r--, ·1 1 I r:f-.OtJ T -~~ ... ,...,._ ... , .. - u --. I I I , -~ •--I 1,. : ....... -__ , l-. .L ;----, .. · ··• • Es: ~-B ~E;fEZ2B.__0 _ --=~:-=.·.:... _________ -- --~ -~tivz.Jt._~7·;.;-:,,.2 1